Chapter 1: Department of the Army

Department of the Army



Fort McClellan, Alabama


Category: Training Schools
Mission: Fort McClellan is home to the U.S. Army Chemical School, U.S. Army Military Police School, and the DoD Polygraph Institute, and the site of the nations only Chemical Defense Training Facility
One-time Cost: $231.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-109.5 million (Cost)
Annual: $40.6 million
Return on Investment: 2005 (6 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort McClellan, except minimum essential land and facilities for a Reserve Component enclave and minimum essential facilities, as necessary, to provide auxiliary support to the chemical demilitarization operation at Anniston Army Depot. Relocate the U. S. Army Chemical and Military Police Schools to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, upon receipt of the required permits. Relocate the Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) to Fort Jackson, South Carolina. License Pelham Range and current Guard facilities to the Alabama Army National Guard.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This closure recommendation is based upon the assumption that requisite permits can be granted to allow operation of the Chemical Defense Training Facility at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The Governor of the State of Missouri has indicated that an expeditious review of the permit application can be accomplished.

Collocation allows the Army to focus on the doctrinal and force development requirements of Engineers, Military Police, and the Chemical Corps. The synergistic advantages of training and development programs are: coordination, employment, and removal of obstacles; conduct of river crossing operations; operations in rear areas or along main supply routes; and counter-drug operations. The missions of the three branches will be more effectively integrated.

This recommendation differs from the Army’s prior closure recommendations submitted to the 1991 and 1993 Commissions. The Army will relocate the Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF) to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. By relocating the CDTF, the Army can continue providing live-agent training to all levels of command. The Army is the only Service that conducts live agent training, and it will continue this training at Fort Leonard Wood.

The Army has considered the use of some Fort McClellan assets for support of the chemical demilitarization mission at Anniston Army Depot. The Army will use the best available assets to provide the necessary support to Anniston’s demilitarization mission.

Community Concerns

The Fort McClellan community believes that DoD failed to comply with the 1993 Commissions direction to pursue permits prior to recommendation. They further argue the issued permits may be invalid, and obtaining a hazardous waste permit may delay completion of a Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF) at Fort Leonard Wood beyond 6 years. The community estimates the cost of a new CDTF at up to $70 million, and the cost of environmental remediation of the existing site at $50 million. The community claims that building a new CDTF risks the loss of live-agent chemical training should environmental suits at Fort Leonard Wood prevail following closure of Fort McClellan. The recommended move, the community argues, also risks turbulence in chemical and military police training at a time when those specialties have been identified as particularly essential to the services missions. The community also sees a risk in reducing the Chemical School to a department of a larger school, costing the Chemical School the influence and prominence needed to carry out its national and international role. The Fort McClellan community claims that environmental restrictions on smoke training at Fort Leonard Wood would imperil the training mission. The community notes the economic impact of this proposal was the highest for any Army closure, and the National Guard enclave and environmental cleanup sites would leave little of the post available for community reuse.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Department of the Army complied to the extent possible with the 1993 Commissions directive to pursue all necessary environmental permits before resubmitting a recommendation to close Fort McClellan. Accordingly, the Army prepared the applications and submitted them concurrently with the recommendation on March 1, 1995.

The Commission found determining the validity of individual state-issued permits was beyond the Commissions charter; other avenues of appeal exist to determine their validity. The Commission concurred, however, with the finding that a hazardous waste permit, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, was not required for operation of the Chemical Defense Training Facility, as evidenced by the successful operation of the Fort McClellan CDTF without such a permit, and information supplied by the Army to the State of Missouri. The Commission found that all permits issued by the State of Missouri conformed to the Army’s requests. The Commission further found permits, once issued, were vested as property rights of Fort Leonard Wood, making revocation difficult. The Commission found the Army’s projected construction cost of a new CDTF to be reasonable.

With regard to the support provided by the Army to the chemical demilitarization operation at Anniston Army Depot, the Commission found the Army accounted for the costs of such support, but did not specify the assets to be used. The Commission further found the Army’s commitment was to supply particular capabilities, independent of where those capabilities were stationed.

The economic impact on the Anniston, Alabama area was found to be significant.

Minimizing turbulence when moving the Chemical School to Fort Leonard Wood was found to be a challenge to Army management. To ensure the capability for live-agent training was maintained, however, the Commission revised the DoD recommendation to require that the Fort McClellan CDTF not be closed until a similar facility was operational at Fort Leonard Wood.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort McClellan, except minimum essential land and facilities for a Reserve Component enclave, minimum essential facilities, as necessary, to provide auxiliary support to the chemical demilitarization operation at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama and the Chemical Defense Training Facility (CDTF). The CDTF will operate at Fort McClellan until such time as the capability to operate a replacement at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri is achieved. Relocate the U.S. Army Military Police School and the U.S. Army Chemical School to Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. Relocate the Defense Polygraph Institute (DODPI) to Fort Jackson, South Carolina. License Pelham Range and current Guard facilities to the Alabama Army National Guard. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.

Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Provide administrative and logistical support to the Northern Warfare Training Center and the Cold Regions Test Activity; assist military organizations and units in their training
One-time Cost: $23.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $38.7 million
Annual: $17.9 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Greely by relocating the Cold Region Test Activity (CRTA) and Northern Warfare Training Center (NWTC) to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Greely currently supports two tenant activities (CRTA and NWTC) and manages training areas for maneuver and range firing. Over 662,000 acres of range and training areas are used by both the Army and the Air Force. These valuable training lands will be retained.

The Army has recently reduced the NWTC by over half its original size and transferred oversight responsibilities to the U.S. Army, Pacific. The garrison staff will reduce in size and continue to support the important testing and training missions. The Army intends to use Fort Wainwright as the base of operations (107 miles away) for these activities, and "safari" them to Fort Greely, as necessary. This allows the Army to reduce its presence at Fort Greely, reduce excess capacity and perform essential missions at a much lower cost. The Army intends to retain facilities at Bolio Lake (for CRTA), Black Rapids (for NWTC), Allen Army Airfield, and minimal necessary garrison facilities to maintain the installation for contingency missions.

Community Concerns

Residents of the Delta Junction community have expressed strong opposition to the DoD recommendation based upon Fort Greelys military value as a major training area, its unique location in the Cold Triangle, which facilitates almost year-round testing by the Cold Regions Test Activity, and the severe economic impact that the area would suffer upon realignment. Community leaders and citizens emphasized that with no other economic base, the recommendation could have a devastating impact on the area, and diminish the size of the local school population by half.


Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army plans to continue its actual Arctic testing and Arctic training activities at Fort Greely. Fort Greely is in the most suitable location, the North American Cold Triangle, to conduct Arctic activities. The Commission found the realignment to Fort Wainwright of those personnel and functions not required to support the Cold Regions Test Activity and the Northern Warfare Training Center at Fort Greely is operationally sound and will generate significant savings.

The Commission also found increased base operating efficiencies would occur if the headquarters and support elements for the Cold Regions Test Activity and Northern Warfare Training Center move to Fort Wainwright. The Commission found that personnel can travel to Fort Greelys Bolio Lake and Black Rapids training facilities to perform their mission, when NWTC courses or CRTA testing is required. While the Commission found the economic impact on Delta Junction, Alaska and its local school system will be serious, these factors were outweighed by both the military value and significant savings that will result from implementation of the Secretary’s Recommendation. To lessen the economic impact and to facilitate community planning for the future, the Commission further found the execution phase of the recommendation should not begin earlier than July 1997, the latest date permitted by Public Law 101-510 to begin a move, and should not be completed before July 2001, the latest date permitted to complete a move. The Army is encouraged to ensure that buildings and facilities at Fort Greely which do become nonessential as a result of the realignment shall be maintained in good working condition to maximize future reuse possibilities.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Greely by relocating the Cold Regions Test Activity (CRTA) and the Northern Warfare Training Center (NWTC) to Fort Wainwright, Alaska, but begin the move no earlier than July 1997. The move should not be completed earlier than July 2001. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Support active Army and Reserve Component training
One-time Cost: $9.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $38.2 million
Annual: $13.4 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Chaffee, except minimum essential buildings, and ranges for Reserve Component (RC) training as an enclave.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In the past ten years, the Army has significantly reduced its active and reserve forces. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet future requirements.

Fort Chaffee is the former home of the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC). In 1991, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission approved the JRTC’s relocation to Fort Polk, LA. The transfer was completed in 1992. The post is managed by an Active Component/civilian staff, although it possesses virtually no Active Component tenants.

Fort Chaffee ranked last in military value when compared to other major training area installations. The Army will retain some ranges for use by the RC units stationed in the area. Annual training for Reserve Component units which now use Fort Chaffee can be conducted at other installations in the region, including Fort Polk, Fort Riley and Fort Sill. The Army intends to license required land and facilities to the Army National Guard.

Community Concerns

The community believes that the military value was improperly assessed, dropping from fifth of ten in 1993, to last among the same ten installations in 1995. The Arkansas Army and Air National Guard are concerned about the future use of both maneuver acreage and the Razorback Range aerial bombing and strafing course, and wish to retain the ranges and most of the maneuver areas. They contend that stopping Reserve Component annual training at Fort Chaffee, and traveling out of state, will cause the quality of training and readiness to suffer severely. Additionally, they believe the increased costs and time required to travel greater distances will result in no significant overall savings. The community further argued DoD should not close Fort Chaffee so that current tenant activities could remain. Finally, concern was expressed that employer support for the Reserve Components may dwindle if additional time away from work is required by employees to get to and from more distant training locations.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army evaluated all its major training area installations equally. The Commission also found the Army’s process of integrating a quantitative installation assessment with a qualitative operational blueprint, based upon operational and stationing requirements of the Army Stationing Strategy, is a sound approach to develop a military value assessment (MVA) for each installation in this category.

The Commission carefully considered the change in Fort Chaffee’s military value assessment from 1993 to 1995, validating the ranking that resulted from changes in the attributes and weights, and found them equally applied to all installations in this category. The Commission found the Army’s original recommendation, which omitted any reference to training land remaining in the enclave, was a legitimate concern of the National Guard and other Reserve Component units, as it decreased their ability to meet training requirements. Therefore, the Commission found the remaining enclave, after closure, must contain sufficient maneuver and artillery training areas to meet the needs of the Guard and Reserve. Because of potential problems with increased travel times to more distant installations, the Commission found the National Guard and other RC units must have access to the training area for both individual and annual training purposes.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria 1 and 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Chaffee, except minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas as a Reserve Component training enclave to permit the conduct of individual and annual training. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Currently has no military mission
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Branch U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Lompoc, CA.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Branch USDB, Lompoc consists of approximately 4,000 acres and 812,000 square feet of detention facilities. It is permitted to and operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. There are no Army activities on USDB, Lompoc. Accordingly, it is excess to the Army’s requirements.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Branch U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Lompoc, California.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provides facilities and housing
One-time Cost: $11.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-7.6 million (Cost)
Annual: $1.3 million
Return on Investment: 2009 (11 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close East Fort Baker. Relocate all tenants to other installations that meet mission requirements. Return all real property to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Secretary of Defense Justification

East Fort Baker is at the north end of the Golden Gate Bridge in Marin County, CA. The post consists of approximately 347 acres and 390,000 square feet of facilities. It provides facilities and housing for the Headquarters, 91st Training Division (U.S. Army Reserve) and the 6th Recruiting Brigade, Army Recruiting Command. The 91st Training Division has a requirement to remain in the San Francisco Bay area, while the 6th Recruiting Brigade has a regional mission associated with the western United States. Both the 6th Recruiting Brigade and the 91st Training Division can easily relocate to other installations. The 91st Training Division will relocate to Parks Reserve Forces Training Area, where it better aligns with its training mission. Closing East Fort Baker saves operations and support costs by consolidating tenants to other military installations without major construction.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close East Fort Baker. Relocate all tenants to other installations that meet mission requirements. Return all real property to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.


Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Home of the Test and Experimentation Command Experimentation Center and the major maneuver training area for the California Army National Guard and western United States Army Reserve forces
One-time Cost: $6.7 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $12.5 million
Annual: $5.7 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Hunter Liggett by relocating the U.S. Army Test and Experimentation Center (TEC) missions and functions to Fort Bliss, Texas. Eliminate the Active Component mission. Retain minimum essential facilities and training area as an enclave to support the Reserve Components (RC).

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Hunter Liggett is low in military value compared to other major training area installations and has few Active Component tenants. Relocation of the Test and Experimentation Center optimizes the unique test capabilities afforded by Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range.

Fort Hunter Liggett’s maneuver space is key to Reserve Component training requirements. Since it is a primary maneuver area for mechanized units in the western United States, retention of its unique training lands is essential.

Community Concerns

Local and state officials are concerned with the cumulative economic impact of previous base closure and realignment actions, coupled with recent major fires and floods in this sparsely populated area. Residents do not want the Test and Experimentation Commands Experimentation Center to move to Fort Bliss, Texas. They maintain that Fort Hunter Liggett, with its varied terrain, a natural bowl surrounded by hills, which permits non-eye-safe laser testing, low artificial light, and no radio frequency interference, is the premier location for operational testing. They believe that possible frequency interference, arid desert conditions, and proximity to the large city of El Paso, make Fort Bliss undesirable as a test site. Some believe Fort Hunter Liggett should have been evaluated as a proving ground or an operational test facility, instead of as a major training area. The California Army National Guard is keenly interested in training at the installation and retaining access to ranges and training areas.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army properly evaluated Fort Hunter Ligget as a major training area and found no basis to change the installations category. The realignment of this installation ends the Active Component presence while preserving the U. S. Army Reserve Command garrison. The Army will license the training facilities and training area to the California National Guard as part of the realignment.

The Commission examined the community’s claim that Fort Hunter Ligget is ideal for TEC’s location and found them to be accurate. The community believed relocation of TEC to Fort Bliss would be unwise, unworkable, and too expensive. The Commission examined each issue raised by advocates of keeping TEC in California and found non-eye-safe laser testing within a 360-degree area is not required for most tests, the frequency conflict between White Sands Missile Range and TEC telemetry can be resolved by coordination of future tests, and the Army has plans to digitize required areas of Fort Bliss. The Commission found although Fort Hunter Ligget is suited to its current mission, the mission can be relocated to Fort Bliss without disruption, and the Army will achieve substantial savings as a result.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Hunter Liggett by relocating the U.S. Army Test and Experimentation Center (TEC) missions and functions to Fort Bliss, Texas. Eliminate the Active Component mission. Retain minimum essential facilities and training area as an enclave to support the Reserve Components (RC).



Category: Ports
Mission: Manage movement of DoD cargo throughout the western US and Pacific; manage port operations on the West Coast and at Pacific locations
One-time Cost: $36.5 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $22.9 million
Annual: $15.9 million
Return on Investment: 2000 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

None. The Commission added this military installation to the list of bases to be considered by the Commission for closure or realignment as a proposed change to the list of recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense.

Community Concerns

The community argues Oakland Army Base provides a critical capability during any major regional contingency. Without Oakland, significant combat forces deploying from Continental United States (CONUS) will not arrive in time to meet the theater commanders required delivery dates. Further, Oakland can efficiently ship overweight, oversized, and non-container military cargo that commercial ports have difficulty handling. The community contends Oakland’s availability on short notice and its secure operating environment offer vital flexibility to military planners. Commercial facilities are becoming increasingly unwilling to guarantee staging and berthing space, within 48 hours, to military cargo. Because commercial facilities are operating near capacity, they are hesitant to disrupt normal traffic, fearing damage to customer relationships and their long term profitability.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the normal workload of Oakland Army Base does not justify its continued operation as a military terminal. Oakland’s role in a west region contingency is based on transportation feasibility analysis that models an obsolete force structure and stationing plan. To date, DoD has not conducted analysis of Oakland’s requirements from a ten division Army viewpoint. The Commission observed DoD transportation engineers list six commercial ports on the West Coast capable of deploying a mechanized infantry division. Further, the Commission acknowledged at least two other military ports on the West Coast handled military cargo in support of Desert Storm. The Commission addressed the growing resistance by commercial operators to disrupt commercial traffic to give priority to military needs. They noted the Maritime Administration (MARAD), Port Authorities, and DoD were undertaking two initiatives to address the issue. The Commission recognized legal means exist under the National Shipping Authority Service Priority Orders to obtain priority for military cargo in contingency situations. Based on deliberations, the Commission found the Secretary of Defense had deviated substantially from operational blueprint criteria by not recommending closure of Oakland Army Base.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Oakland Army Base, California. Relocate Military Traffic Management Command – Western Area and 1302nd Major Port Command to locations to be determined. Enclave Army Reserve elements. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Formerly supported an Army Reserve watercraft unit
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.6 million
Annual: $0.1 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Rio Vista Army Reserve Center.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Rio Vista Army Reserve Center consists of approximately 28 acres. It formerly supported an Army Reserve watercraft unit. Since Reserve Components no longer use Rio Vista Reserve Center, it is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing Rio Vista will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 28 acres.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Rio Vista Army Reserve Center.



Category: Ammunition Storage Installations
Mission: Receive, store, maintain, issue, demilitarize, and calibrate special weapons, conventional ammunition, and general supplies; store Southwest Asia Petroleum Distribution Operational Project and Water Support Equipment Project for the Army
One-time Cost: $10.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $40.8 million
Annual: $18.5 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Sierra Army Depot by eliminating the conventional ammunition mission and reducing it to a depot activity. Retain an enclave for the Operational Project Stock mission and the static storage of ores.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation is supported by the Army’s long range operational assessment. The Army has adopted a "tiered" ammunition depot concept to reduce infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile. The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:

(1) Tier 1 – Active Core Depots. These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization. Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities. Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2) Tier 2 – Cadre Depots. These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements. Daily activity will be minimal for receipts/issues. Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations. These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.

(3) Tier 3 – Caretaker Depots. Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated. The Army plans to eliminate stocks at these sites no later than year 2001. Sierra Army Depot is a Tier 3 Depot.

Complete closure is not possible, since Sierra is the Center of Technical Excellence for Operational Project Stocks. This mission entails the management, processing and maintenance of: Force Provider (550-man tent city), Inland Petroleum Distribution System; and Water Support System. It also stores such stocks as Clam Shelters (mobile maintenance tents), bridging, and landing mats for helicopters. The cost of relocating the Operational Project Stocks is prohibitively expensive. Therefore, the Army will retain minimum essential facilities for storage.

Community Concerns

The community argues the Army military value assessment undervalues or overlooks Sierras demilitarization mission. They point out Sierra has over 40 percent of the Army’s open detonation capability, without which Army demilitarization goals cannot be met. The community notes conflicts between the Army’s goals expressed in the Wholesale Ammunition Stockpile Program and criteria weighting factors in the military value analysis have not been resolved, and inclusion of the ammunition tiering plan in the operational blueprint short-circuits the military value analysis process. They contend due to a data error, the recommendation would cut only 125 direct positions, not 305, and reduce expected savings. Savings would also be reduced by the $38 to $91 million dollar cost of moving ammunition, and by having to ship ammunition in wartime from installations farther from west coast ports. The community contends Sierra received no credit for its almost complete ammunition surveillance facility or its missile maintenance and test facilities, and was undercounted by 88 percent in demilitarization capability. It also states the depots desert location, with dry outdoor storage, was scored the same as less-desirable locations. In addition, the community states the 839 jobs projected to be lost would constitute an 8.8 percent increase in county unemployment, resulting in total unemployment of 20.7 percent.

Commission Findings

The Commission found conventional ammunition demilitarization, one of Sierras principal missions, was undervalued, as no measure of demilitarization capacity was included in the installation assessment. While the operational blueprint considered long-term demilitarization capacity, the recommendations effect on near- to mid-term capacity was not considered. The Commission also found the recommendation conflicted with the Army operational blueprint by overcommitting demilitarization capacity. In addition, the Commission found the ammunition tiering plan should not have been used for BRAC purposes, as it prevented installations in the category from being fairly compared against each other, did not use certified data, and had several other flaws.

The Commission found the Secretary of Defenses alternative recommendation preserved essential demilitarization capacity and necessary covered and outdoor storage, reduced the original recommendations significant economic impact, and avoided substantial ammunition moving costs.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Sierra Army Depot by reducing the conventional ammunition mission to the level necessary to support the conventional ammunition demilitarization mission. Retain a conventional ammunition demilitarization capability and an enclave for the Operational Project Stocks mission and the static storage of ores. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Medical Centers
Mission: Provide medical services, train providers, and perform medical research
One-time Cost: $105.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $4.6 million
Annual: $36.4 million
Return on Investment: 2002 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fitzsimons Army Medical Center (FAMC), except for Edgar J. McWhethy Army Reserve Center. Relocate the Medical Equipment and Optical School and Optical Fabrication Laboratory to Fort Sam Houston, TX. Relocate Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) activities to Denver leased space. Relocate other tenants to other installations.

Secretary of Defense Justification

FAMC is low in military value compared to other medical centers. This recommendation avoids anticipated need for estimated $245 million construction to replace FAMC while preserving health care services through other more cost-effective means. This action will offset any loss of medical services through: phased-in CHAMPUS and Managed Care Support contracts; increased services at Fort Carson and U.S. Air Force Academy; and redistribution of Medical Center patient load from Region Eight to other Medical
Centers. FAMC is not collocated with a sizable active component population. Its elimination does not jeopardize the Army’s capability to surge to support two near-simultaneous major regional contingencies, or limit the Army’s capability to provide wartime medical support in the theater of operations. Closure of this medical center allows redistribution of medical military personnel to other medical centers to absorb the diverted medical center patient load. These realignments avoid a significant cost of continuing to operate and maintain facilities at this stand-alone medical center. DoD’s Joint Cross-Service Group for Military Treatment Facilities supports the closure of Fitzsimons.

Community Concerns

The community argues the installation assessment criteria employed by the Army to measure Fitzsimons Army Medical Center were inappropriate and it was unfair to limit the comparison to only the three stand-alone Army medical centers. In particular, the community points to the use of size as a comparative measure in several criteria, saying larger hospitals do not necessarily mean better or more efficient hospitals. They also observe the Army assessment criteria differed significantly from the criteria measured by the Medical Joint Cross Service Group. In addition, the community points out what they considered to be many inconsistencies and mistakes in the Army’s scoring.

The community also argues closure of the hospital would have substantial negative impacts on the health and financial security of the large retired community in the Denver area. They say closing the hospital would break the promise of free health care for life that many feel was made to military retirees. They note the medical centers mission as a regional referral center for a 14-state region and the lack of any other tertiary care hospitals in the region. Further, the community questions the readiness impact of closing the medical center and eliminating the civilian personnel positions, as well as the readiness impact of losing its satellite communications capability.

The community also argues the economic impact on the City of Aurora would be extremely high. They say the area has already been badly hurt by previous base closures, and closure of Fitzsimons Army Medical Center would mean more direct and indirect job losses than reported by the Army. Finally, they question the one-time costs in the Army’s analysis, the increased cost of transporting referral patients to other hospitals if the medical center closes, and the impact of the closure on DoD-Indian Health Service sharing agreements.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army’s recommendation to close Fitzsimons Army Medical Center is in line with the Army’s stationing strategy that military hospitals should primarily support active duty military personnel and their families. Fitzsimons does not primarily support a nearby active duty population, and its closure permits the Army to redirect medical personnel and resources to other hospitals that do. The Commission also found the medical centers referral mission can be economically absorbed by other facilities. The Commission agreed with the community that closure of Fitzsimons will create disruptions and raise costs for retirees seeking health care, but noted other government programs — CHAMPUS, Tricare, Medicare, and continued pharmacy benefits — will help to mitigate these impacts. The Commission found DoD’s evaluation of joint service training consolidation alternatives could result in a decision to relocate tenants elsewhere; hence, it agreed to the request of the Secretary of Defense to not specify gaining locations.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria 2 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fitzsimons Army Medical Center (FAMC), except Edgar J. McWhethy Army Reserve Center. Relocate other tenants to other installations. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Industrial Facilities
Mission: Engine production
One-time Cost: $6.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $20.5 million
Annual: $6.1 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Stratford Army Engine Plant.

Secretary of Defense Justification

The Stratford facility has produced engines for heavy armor vehicles and rotary wing aircraft. Reduced production requirements and the Army’s increased capability for rebuild and repair have eliminated the need for the Stratford Army Engine Plant. There is no requirement for use of the installation by either the Active or Reserve Components.

The Army has an extensive capability to repair engines at Anniston and Corpus Christi Army Depots. The current inventory for these engines meets projected operational requirements. During mobilization, the capability to rebuild engines can be increased at both depots. In the event of an extended national emergency that would deplete stocks, the depots could reconfigure to assemble new engines from parts provided by the manufacturer until mothballed facilities become operational. Prior to closing the facility, the contractor will complete all existing contracts.

Community Concerns

The community contends closing Stratford Army Engine Plant will result in loss of the Army’s only capability to produce turbine engines for tanks. The loss of this capability and the associated technical and engineering support, in the community’s view, will have significant readiness impact. Another concern is the loss of 1600 contractor jobs from the local economy. The community claims a study, under Corps of Engineers direction, requires $17 million in environmental stabilization costs to close Stratford Army Engine Plant. The community questions whether or not the Army’s recommendation complies with a Defense Science Board Tank Engine Industrial Base Task Force recommendation. The community challenges the Army’s economic impact estimates and cost analysis. The community contends the Army is under estimating costs for equipment movement or disposal, military construction at gaining installations, and personnel. They also point out the Army analysis does not account for loss of $2 million in rental income from the contractor.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army can sustain the tank engine and helicopter turbine engine base through Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas. With the decreasing need for new engines and technological capabilities currently available in the private industrial sector, retention of Stratford Army Engine Plant was not necessary. The Commission found the Army estimates on the costs of this recommendation were understated. Recognition of the costs associated with movement of Defense Contract Management Personnel and movement of equipment necessary to future production of spares for engine rebuild changed the return on investment to one year instead of immediate.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Stratford Army Engine Plant.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Formerly provided communication support to the U.S. Army
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.05 million
Annual: $0.01 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
Final Action: Close


Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Big Coppett Key.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Big Coppett Key, an island near Key West, consists of approximately five acres and 3,000 square feet of facilities. Big Coppett Key formerly provided communications support to United States Army. Since the Army no longer uses Big Coppett Key, it is excess and to Army requirements. Closing Big Coppett Key will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Big Coppett Key.



Category: Command, Control and Administration
Mission: Administrative and logistics support
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-01: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Charles Melvin Price Support Center, except a small reserve enclave and a storage area.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Charles Melvin Price Support Center provides area support and military housing to the Army and other Federal activities in the St. Louis, MO, area. It is low in military value compared to similar installations. Its tenants, including a recruiting company and a criminal investigative unit, can easily relocate.

This recommendation is related to the Army’s recommendation to relocate Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM) from St. Louis, MO, to other locations. A reduction in the Army’s presence in the area warrants a corresponding reduction in Charles Melvin Price Support Center.

Community Concerns

The community believes the military value was understated because it did not adequately consider logistical value of the Price Support Center. The Army Center provides most of its support to other DoD organizations, and only limited support to the Aviation-Troop Command. The community argued the Army’s savings were overstated because housing allowance costs were not considered, and closure costs were understated because the Army did not include costs to relocate the various DoD tenants. Finally, the community believes adequate housing is not available in the local market.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army did not include housing allowances for all personnel remaining in the St. Louis area. The Commission analysis shows the Army will save only $77,000 annually by paying housing allowances rather than operating and maintaining the family housing at Price Support Center. The Commission found the housing has no deferred maintenance, primarily because 100 of the 164 units were built during 1988/90 time frame. In addition, the Commission noted 257 personnel are already in off-base housing that is deemed unacceptable due to cost and distance from their work location. The Commission found the tenant activities do not have to be relocated, since the enclave includes all the warehouse and storage space. Finally, the Commission found the relocation of the Aviation-Troop Command has minimal effect on the Price Support Center.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Charles Melvin Price Support Center will remain open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Ammunition Storage Installations
Mission: Receive, store, and issue conventional ammunition and critical strategic material; Technical Center for Explosives Safety; U.S. Army Defense Ammunition Center and School
One-time Cost: $66.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-41.6 million (Cost)
Annual: $12.1 million
Return on Investment: 2006 (5 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Savanna Army Depot Activity (ADA). Relocate the United States Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS) to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation is supported by the Army’s long range operational assessment. The Army has adopted a tiered ammunition depot concept to reduce infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile. The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:

(1) Tier 1 – Active Core Depots. These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization. Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities. Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2) Tier 2 – Cadre Depots. These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements. Daily activity will be minimal for receipts/issues. Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations. These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.

(3) Tier 3 – Caretaker Depots. Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated. The Army plans to eliminate its stocks at these sites no later than year 2001. Savanna Army Depot Activity is a Tier 3 depot.

USADACS performs the following basic functions: munitions training, logistics engineering, explosive safety, demilitarization research and development, technical assistance, and career management. Relocation of USADACS to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) allows it to collocate with an active ammunition storage and production operation. McAlester AAP, a Tier 1 depot, is the best for providing the needed capabilities.

Community Concerns

The community claims an Army study concluded all indoor Army ammunition storage would be full in Fiscal Year 95, arguing no such facilities can be closed. In addition, they argue costs of moving ammunition and personnel, as well as building a new facility to house the United States Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS) are understated. The Savanna community also alleges facilities identified to house USADACS at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma, are inadequate. The community contends the explosive waste incinerator and depleted uranium demilitarization facilities on site at Savanna are essential to achieving Army demilitarization goals. Local officials note the unemployment resulting from a closure would reach 10.6 percent in Carroll and Jo Daviess counties, and increased unemployment would have extra impact on their rural area. They project $14 million in extra costs due to DoD’s obligation to buy unsold homes, given the poor local real estate market. The community also notes reuse of Savanna would be inhibited by buried ammunition from its years as an artillery range.

Commission Findings

The Commission found facilities at McAlester Army Ammunition Plant will be adequate to house USADACS when construction is complete, and the community’s estimate of $50 million in facilities costs was not documented. The economic impact in Carroll and Jo Daviess Counties was judged to be significant.

The Commission found the ammunition tiering plan used as an input to the Army’s operational blueprint was not intended for BRAC purposes, and contained both internal inconsistencies and flaws arising from its use in the BRAC context. Because of the inclusion of the tiering plan, bases in different tiers could not be fairly evaluated against each other. DoD’s estimated cost of moving residual ammunition was at the low end of the cost range established by Industrial Operations Command. Also, the Commission agreed with the Department that it was more economical to store depleted uranium munitions than to demilitarize them.

The Commission found no significant excess capacity existed in the Army ammunition storage system. The Commission, however, also found retention of the demilitarization capability at Sierra Army Depot left enough demilitarization capacity to create excess storage capacity equal to two installations over the next six years if demilitarization of existing ammunition stored outdoors is deferred. Given that ability, the Commission ultimately decided Savanna could be closed.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Savanna Army Depot Activity (ADA). Relocate the United States Army Defense Ammunition Center and School (USADACS) to McAlester Army Ammunition Plant, Oklahoma.

Category: Leases
Mission: Independent studies
One-time Cost: $2.7 million
Savings: 1996-01: $0.1 million
Annual: $0.9 million
Return on Investment: 2002 (4 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close by relocating Concepts Analysis Agency to Fort Belvoir, VA.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In 1993, the Commission suggested that DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space. The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations. Because of the cost of leasing, the Army’s goal is to minimize leased space when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned space.

Since Army studies indicate that space is available at Fort Belvoir, the Concepts Analysis Agency can easily relocate with limited renovation. The annual cost of the current lease is $1.5 million.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close by relocating Concepts Analysis Agency to Fort Belvoir, Virginia.



Category: Miscellaneous
Mission: Provide support to tenant activities
One-time Cost: *
Savings: 1996-2001: *
Annual: *
Return on Investment: *
FINAL ACTION: Close

* Costs and savings for this recommendation are included in the Defense Investigative Service recommendation.

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

None. The Commission added this military installation to the list of bases to be considered by the Commission for closure or realignment as a proposed change to the list of recommendations submitted by the Secretary of Defense.

Community Concerns

The Community supports closure of Fort Holabird after the relocation of the last remaining tenant the Investigation Control & Automation Directorate of the Defense Investigative Service.

Commission Findings

The Commission found Fort Holabird to be excess to the needs of the Army.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Holabird. Relocate the Defense Investigative Service (DIS), Investigations Control and Automation Directorate (IC&AD) to Fort Meade, Maryland. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Command and Control
Mission: Provide base operations support to the National Security Agency and other tenants
One-time Cost: $1.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $16.4 million
Annual: $3.5 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Meade by reducing Kimbrough Army Community Hospital to a clinic. Eliminate inpatient services.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation, suggested by the Joint Cross-Service Group on Medical Treatment, eliminates excess medical treatment capacity at Fort Meade, MD by eliminating inpatient services at Kimbrough Army Community Hospital. Inpatient care would be provided by other military medical activities and private facilities through Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).

Community Concerns

The community contends the net effect of the Army’s recommendation would be increased costs, not savings. They argue current hospital inpatient workload would go to CHAMPUS at rates higher than the Army estimates, and the cost of workload moving to Walter Reed Army Medical Center would be higher than the cost of the same workload at Kimbrough Army Community Hospital. The community also believes there could be negative impacts on the 57 tenant activities on Fort Meade and the 778 Fort Meade families enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program. Finally, the community contends there would be negative cost and access implications for current hospital users, especially retirees.

Commission Findings

The Commission found realignment of Kimbrough Army Community Hospital, to an outpatient clinic, will reduce costs by eliminating excess acute care hospital beds in an area with a number of other military hospitals. The Commission recognized current hospital users will have to travel to Walter Reed Army Medical Center or to civilian hospitals in order to receive needed inpatient services. While the Commission found this recommendation will save the government money, the Commission acknowledges the inconvenience some current Kimbrough users, particularly families enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program and some members of the retired community, will experience.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Meade by reducing Kimbrough Army Community Hospital to a clinic. Eliminate inpatient services.



Category: Command and Control
Mission: Provides base operations and real property maintenance for the garrison installation, the National Military Command Center Facility Site R, satellite activities, and other tenants (including Camp David)
One-time Cost: $69.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $23.3 million
Annual: $26.1 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Ritchie. Relocate the 1111th Signal Battalion and 1108th Signal Brigade to Fort Detrick, MD. Relocate Information Systems Engineering Command elements to Fort Huachuca, AZ.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation assumes that base support for Defense Intelligence Agency and other National Military Command Center support elements will be provided by nearby Fort Detrick. Closing Fort Ritchie and transferring support elements of the National Military Command Center to Fort Detrick will: (a) maintain operational mission support to geographically unique Sites R and C (National Military Command Center) for the Joint Chiefs of Staff; (b) capitalize on existing facilities at Site R and C to minimize construction; (c) maintain an active use and continuous surveillance of Site R and Site C facilities to maintain readiness; (d) collocate signal units that were previously separated at two different garrisons; (e) consolidate major portion of Information Systems Engineering Command-CONUS with main headquarters of Information Systems Engineering Command to improve synergy of information system operations; and (f) provide a direct support East Coast Information Systems Engineering Command field element to respond to regional requirements. These relocations, collocations and consolidations allow the elimination of Fort Ritchie’s garrison and avoids significant costs associated with the continued operation and maintenance of support facilities at a small installation.

Community Concerns

The community argues Fort Ritchie provides vital joint service support of high military value within the National Capital Region. As such, the installation met the Army’s operational blueprint for a critical facility and should have been excluded from closure consideration. In the community’s view, Fort Ritchie provides critical support to the Alternate Joint Command and Control Site R. Relocation of that support to Fort Detrick, Maryland, would unacceptably degrade emergency response time to Site R. The community maintains the DoD recommendation to close Fort Ritchie misses an opportunity to achieve synergy by not consolidating disparate Defense Information Systems Agency – Western Hemisphere (DISA-WESTHEM) elements at Fort Ritchie. They also note the primary customer base for numerous tenants is located in the National Capital Region (NCR). Relocation of those tenants to Fort Huachuca, AZ, would result in increased operating costs not captured in the DoD cost estimates. The community further contends existing water shortages at Fort Huachuca will be exacerbated by relocating elements from Fort Ritchie.

The community argues that initial Army cost estimates were fatally flawed. Personnel strength figures and family housing operations were erroneous, and cost estimates failed to consider the requirement for continued on-site garrison activities at Site R. From the community’s perspective, the flawed estimates invalidate the foundation of the closure recommendation. The community also notes the impact of closing Fort Ritchie will be a severe economic blow to the surrounding Northern Maryland / Southern Pennsylvania area where the unemployment rate is consistently greater than state and national averages.

Commission Findings

The Commission found support to the Alternate National Military Command Center (Site R) is a vital requirement, and that response time from Fort Detrick, Maryland, is 45 minutes or more longer than from Fort Ritchie. The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, accepts the lengthened response time, and thus the Commission found this recommendation does not adversely impact operation of Site R.

The Commission noted the Defense Information Systems Agency – Western Hemisphere (DISA-WESTHEM) performs valuable oversight of Defense Department automated management database links. The Commission found DISA-WESTHEM’s mission is not location dependent. It can be accomplished anywhere appropriate communication nodes exist.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Ritchie except for a National Guard enclave. Relocate the 1111th Signal Battalion and 1108th Signal Brigade to Fort Detrick, Maryland. Relocate Information Systems Engineering Command elements to Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Publications distribution
One-time Cost: $7.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $27.3 million
Annual: $7.7 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate)
Final Action: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close by relocating the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore to the U.S. Army Publications Center St. Louis, Missouri.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Consolidation of the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore with the U.S. Army Publications Center, St. Louis, combines the wholesale and retail distribution functions of publication distribution into one location. The consolidation eliminates a manual operation at Baltimore in favor of an automated facility at St. Louis and creates efficiencies in the overall distribution process. This move consolidates two leases into one less costly lease.

Community Concerns

The community expressed concern that greater savings would be achieved by consolidating all of the DoD Publications Centers into the Baltimore and St. Louis Centers. They argue because both are DoD’s most sophisticated publications centers, the lesser, more manual facilities throughout DoD should be consolidated into the two best. The community expressed concern the Baltimore Center was classified as a manual operation when in fact it is a highly automated facility. Despite the fact that forklift operators are still required to store and retrieve stock, the rest of the facility is highly automated. The community expressed concern if the Baltimore Center closed, the St. Louis Center would be required to lease additional warehouse space in St. Louis because they do not possess the space required to absorb Baltimore’s stock.

Commission Findings

The Commission found although the Department of Defense is currently studying the consolidation of all DoD publication distribution centers, no such consolidation is expected to involve the Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore. The Commission found Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore is an automated facility despite the Secretary of the Army’s assertion that it is a manual facility. Additionally, the Commission found the Army will be using warehouse space on an Army-owned installation during the transition period involving the consolidation of the two Army publications distributions centers.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close by relocating the U.S. Army Publications Distribution Center, Baltimore to the U.S. Army Publications Center St. Louis, Missouri.



Category: Commodity
Mission: Provide facilities and services to tenant activities
One-time Cost: $0.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $4.5 million
Annual: $0.03 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Redirect

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding Tri-Service Project Reliance. Upon disestablishment of the U.S. Army Biomedical Research Development Laboratory (USABRDL) at Fort Detrick, MD, do not collocate environmental and occupational toxicology research with the Armstrong Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. Instead relocate the health advisories environmental fate research and military criteria research functions of the Environmental Quality Research Branch to the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, and maintain the remaining functions of conducting non-mammalian toxicity assessment models and on-site biomonitoring research of the Research Methods Branch at Fort Detrick as part of Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.

Secretary of Defense Justification

There are no operational advantages that accrue by relocating this activity to Wright-Patterson AFB. Substantial resources were expended over the last 15 years to develop this unique laboratory currently used by researchers from across the DoD, other federal agencies, and the academic community. No facilities are available at Wright-Patterson to accommodate this unique aquatic research activity, which supports environmental quality R&D initiatives developing cost effective alternatives to the use of mammalian species in toxicity testing. The Commission found necessary significant new construction would be required at Wright-Patterson to duplicate facilities at Fort Detrick to continue this critical research. No construction is required at Aberdeen Proving Ground, however. Furthermore, the quality of water required for the culture of aquatic animals used in this research is not adequate at Wright-Patterson. The Commission found to maintain the water quality it would necessitate additional construction and result in either several years of costly overlapping research in Maryland and Ohio, or the loss of over 10 years experience with the unique lab colonies used at Fort Detrick. The Navy and the Air Force agree that true research synergy is possible without executing the planned relocation.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found this recommendation would permit DoD to avoid the cost and disruption of relocating a unique facility without compromising the cross-servicing goals of the Tri-Service Project Reliance Study. Therefore, the Commission found this recommendation does not deviate from the 1991 Commissions intention to consolidate biomedical research functions.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: change the recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding Tri-Service Project Reliance. Upon disestablishment of the U.S. Army Biomedical Research Development Laboratory (USABRDL) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, do not collocate environmental and occupational toxicology research with the Armstrong Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Instead relocate the health advisories environmental fate research and military criteria research functions of the Environmental Quality Research Branch to the U.S. Army Environmental Hygiene Agency (AEHA), Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and maintain the remaining functions of conducting non-mammalian toxicity assessment models and on-site biomonitoring research of the Research Methods Branch at Fort Detrick as part of Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Currently has no mission
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.8 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Hingham Cohasset.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Hingham Cohasset, formerly a U.S. Army Reserve Center, is essentially vacant and is excess to the Army’s requirements. The site consists of approximately 125 acres and 150,000 square feet of facilities. Closing Hingham Cohasset will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Hingham Cohasset.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provide storage facilities for various DoD activities
One-time Cost: $0.8 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-0.1 million (Cost)
Annual: $0.1 million
Return on Investment: 2003 (5 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Sudbury Training Annex.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Sudbury Training Annex, outside Boston, consists of approximately 2,000 acres and 200,000 square feet of facilities. The primary mission of Sudbury Training Annex is to provide storage facilities for various Department of Defense activities. Sudbury Training Annex is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing the annex will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 2,000 acres.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Sudbury Training Annex.



Category: Commodity
Mission: Tank Production
One-time Cost: $1.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $7.9 million
Annual: $3.1 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Detroit Arsenal by closing and disposing of the Detroit Army Tank Plant.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Detroit Tank Plant, located on Detroit Arsenal, is one of two Army Government-owned, contractor-operated tank production facilities. A second facility is located at Lima, Ohio, (Lima Army Tank Plant). The Detroit plant is not as technologically advanced as the Lima facility and is not configured for the latest tank production. Moreover, retaining the plant as a "rebuild" facility is not practical since Anniston Army Depot is capable of rebuilding and repairing the M1 Tank and its principal components. Accordingly, the Detroit Tank Plant is excess to Army requirements.

Community Concerns

The community expresses concern over the loss of approximately 150 civilian contractor employees. While the impact is less than one percent of the Detroit Metropolitan Statistical Area, the community argues the loss of these jobs should be included in the Army’s analysis of the Detroit Arsenal recommendation. Additionally, the community challenges transfer of gun mount production to Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, arguing Detroit Arsenal could produce gun mounts of better quality at lower cost. They further state movement of gun mount production from a Government-owned, contractor-operated facility (Detroit Arsenal Tank Plant) to a Government-owned, government-operated facility (Rock Island Arsenal) is in conflict with guidance in Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. The community believes there are inaccuracies in the Army’s cost analysis of the recommendation. They fault the Army for not recognizing the need to relocate 40 Defense Contract Management Office personnel located at the plant and for not including costs for equipment movement and military construction at gaining installations in its economic analysis.

Commission Findings

The Commission found omission of contract job losses had no significant bearing on the overall recommendation or the local community. The total impact is less than one percent of the Detroit Metropolitan Statistical Area. Input from the Army indicated that Rock Island Arsenal and Lima Army Tank Plant can accept transfer of production requirements without additional equipment or construction. The Commission found consolidating gun mount production at Rock Island would result in unit cost reduction to approximately $38,000 from the current $53,000. There was no indication quality at either location varies; therefore, it is not a significant issue. In addition, there was no indication the Secretary of Defenses recommendation conflicted with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76. Finally, the Commission found Defense Contracting Management Office personnel would move to other space on Detroit Arsenal.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Detroit Arsenal by closing and disposing of the Detroit Army Tank Plant.



Category: Command, Control and Administration
Mission: Installation and logistical support
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-01: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close U.S. Army Garrison, Selfridge.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Closing Selfridge eliminates an installation that exists primarily to provide housing for activities (predominantly Detroit Arsenal) located in the immediate area although such support can be provided through a less costly alternative. Sufficient commercial housing is available on the local economy for military personnel using Variable Housing Allowance/Basic Allowance for Quarters. Closure avoids the cost of continued operation and maintenance of unnecessary support facilities. This recommendation will not degrade local military activities.

Community Concerns

The community believes the base has high military value since it is a model of joint operations. The community argued the savings are significantly overstated because the Army, (1) did not include housing allowance costs for all personnel residing in the family housing, and, (2) overstated the cost of family housing operations. Furthermore, the community contends suitable housing is not available in the local market. Because no other DoD activities are relocating, the community contends the base operations savings are overstated and these activities will have to increase their funding.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the savings from closing family housing were overstated. The Commission analysis shows the Army will save $500,000 annually by paying housing allowances rather than operating and maintaining the family housing at Selfridge, because the Army did not include the cost of housing allowances for all personnel remaining in the area. The Commission found the housing allowances are adequate for the area rents, but a two percent vacancy rate may make it difficult to find housing. The Commission found the 765 active units meet current DoD standards and there is $150,000 in deferred maintenance. Finally, the Commission found another service would have to increase its base operations funding, which would reduce the estimated savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 4. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: U.S. Army Garrison, Selfridge will remain open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Leases
Mission: Logistics support
One-time Cost: $152.1 million
Savings: 1996-01: $31.3 million
Annual: $56.0 million
Return on Investment: 2001 (3 years)
FINAL ACTION: Disestablish

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Disestablish Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM), and close by relocating its missions/functions as follows:

Relocate Aviation Research, Development & Engineering Center; Aviation Management; and Aviation Program Executive Offices to Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL, to form the Aviation & Missile Command.

Relocate functions related to soldier systems to Natick Research, Development, Engineering Center, MA, to align with the Soldier Systems Command.

Relocate functions related to materiel management of communications-electronics to Fort Monmouth, NJ, to align with Communications-Electronics Command.

Relocate automotive materiel management functions to Detroit Arsenal, MI, to align with Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In 1993, the Commission suggested that DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space. The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations. Because of the cost of leasing, the Army’s goal is to minimize leased space, when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned facilities.

In 1991, the Commission approved the merger of Aviation Systems Command and Troop Systems Command (ATCOM). It also recommended that the Army evaluate the relocation of these activities from leased space to government-owned facilities and provide appropriate recommendations to a subsequent Commission. In 1993, the Army studied the possibility of relocating ATCOM to a military installation and concluded it would be too costly. It is evident that restructuring ATCOM now provides a financially attractive opportunity to relocate.

Significant functional efficiencies are also possible by separating aviation and troop support commodities and relocating these functions to military installations. The aviation support functions realign to Redstone Arsenal to form a new Aviation & Missiles Command. The troop support functions realign to Natick, MA to align with the new Soldier Systems Command.

This recommendation preserves crucial research and development functions while optimizing operational efficiencies. Moving elements of ATCOM to Natick and Redstone Arsenal improves the synergistic effect of research, development and engineering, by facilitating the interaction between the medical, academic, and industrial communities already present in these regions. Vacating the St. Louis lease will collocate/consolidate similar life cycle functions at military installations for improved efficiencies and effectiveness.

Community Concerns

The community contends the Army did not conduct a military value assessment of leased facilities, which is a substantial deviation from DoD policy. The community believes the civilian personnel eliminations were overstated because, (1) too many mission support positions were eliminated, (2) positions required for area support in St. Louis were eliminated, (3) the number of base operation support positions at the gaining installations is understated, and (4) the Army counted force structure reductions as savings. The community also believes the Army failed to comply with its Stationing Strategy which states consolidations should increase efficiency and reduce overhead. According to the community, transfer of ATCOMs functions to the proposed receiving bases would increase the Army’s overhead costs. The community believes the Army could achieve significant savings if they moved activities from leased space in Huntsville, Alabama to Redstone Arsenal. The community also argued the cost to establish Soldier System Command should have been included. Finally, the General Services Administration contends the recommendation would significantly increase the cost to the government, because they would have to close the St. Louis facility and relocate the remaining tenants.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army did a military value assessment of the Aviation-Troop Command, and, although the process was different than the one used for the other installation categories, all leased facilities were analyzed equally. The Commission found the personnel savings were not overstated to the degree stated by the community, although the Commission did reduce the number of civilian position eliminations for planned force-structure changes. The personnel savings represent a 21 percent reduction in personnel, which can be achieved by merging Aviation-Troop Command and Missile Command. The Commission found the community incorrectly counted force-structure reductions in the Program Executive Office-Aviation and Systems Integrated Management Activity as base closure savings.

The Commission found disestablishing Aviation-Troop Command, and realigning its functions, to military organizations with similar life-cycle functions is consistent with the Army’s Stationing Strategy. The Commission found the recommendation will reduce base operating costs by $7.4 million.

The Commission also found the savings from realigning ATCOM are much greater than moving activities from leased space in Huntsville, Alabama, onto Redstone Arsenal. The Army is moving some activities in leased space in Huntsville onto existing space at Redstone Arsenal, as well as consolidating into fewer leased facilities. These actions will save $2.1 million annually.

Finally, the Commission found the Army did not consider the total cost to the government from relocating ATCOM. According to General Services Administration (GSA) officials, they can not backfill the 700,000 square feet of space, so the remaining tenants will be relocated. GSA estimated it will cost $11.1 million to relocate the tenants, and they will incur rent increase of $3.8 million annually. Even when these costs are included, and total cost to the government is considered, the Commission found the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense still provided significant savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: disestablish Aviation-Troop Command (ATCOM), and close by relocating its mission/functions as follows: relocate Aviation Research, Development & Engineering Center; Aviation Management; and Aviation Program Executive Offices to Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, to form the Aviation & Missile Command. Relocate functions related to soldier systems to Natick Research, Development, Engineering Center, Massachusetts, to align with the Soldier Systems Command. Relocate functions related to materiel management of communications-electronics to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to align with Communications-Electronics Command. Relocate automotive materiel management functions to Detroit Arsenal, Michigan, to align with Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provides administration, maintenance, and logistics support to Reserve Components
One-time Cost: $0.4 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.6 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (2 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Missoula, except an enclave for minimum essential land and facilities to support the Reserve Component units.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Missoula consists of approximately 35 acres and 180,000 square feet of facilities. It provides administration, supply, training, maintenance, logistics support to Reserve Component forces. The post also provides facilities for the United States Forest Service. Fort Missoula has land and facilities excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing Fort Missoula will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 25 acres. The Army intends to continue to license buildings and land currently occupied by the Army National Guard.

Community Concerns

The Rocky Mountain Heritage Group has expressed interest in property.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Secretary’s recommendation to close Fort Missoula reduces unnecessary infrastructure; however, there is a need to maintain minimum essential land and facilities to support the Reserve Components.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Missoula, except an enclave for minimum essential land and facilities to support the Reserve Component units.



Category: Ports
Mission: Manage movement of DoD cargo throughout the eastern US and Atlantic; manage port operations on the East Coast and at Atlantic locations in support of European, African, Mediterranean, and South American Theaters of Operations
One-time Cost: $79.7 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $-23.9 million (Cost)
Annual: $17.1 million
Return on Investment: 2003 (5 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal. Relocate the Military Transportation Management Command (MTMC) Eastern Area Command Headquarters and the traffic management portion of the 1301st Major Port Command to Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Retain an enclave for the Navy Military Sealift Command, Atlantic, and Navy Resale and Fashion Distribution Center.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation is supported by the Armys long range operational assessment. The primary mission of Bayonne is the shipment of general bulk cargo. It has no capability to ship bulk munitions. There are sufficient commercial port facilities on the East and Gulf Coasts to support power projection requirements with a minimal loss to operational capability. Bayonne provides the Army with few military capabilities that cannot be accomplished at commercial ports.

Community Concerns

The community states Army ownership of Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal (MOT) provides a vital capability unavailable through use of commercial port facilities. Bayonne offers a secure environment and the flexibility to stage and reconfigure equipment. The communities argue staging and temporary storage is extremely limited at area commercial ports. Some commercial automobile cargo is staging on Bayonne MOT property due to lack of commercial holding space. The community also pointed out commercial facilities generally lack the reinforced pavement necessary to handle certain heavy military vehicles. Additionally, commercial ports are not configured to handle most military cargo efficiently. (Military cargo is characterized as outsized, overweight, and non-container.) Further, the specialized contract work force at Bayonne provides skill in handling military cargo that is not available at area commercial ports.

The community argues New York area commercial ports are operating near or above capacity. While commercial port operators are willing to work with military planners to augment military terminal capacity, they are not willing to guarantee meeting all crisis military staging and berthing requirements within the 48 hour period specified by Port Planning Orders. Abrupt disruption to their commercial business could prove damaging to their long-term workload and profitability. They note that 12-14 days was a more appropriate time frame to clear staging and berthing facilities for priority military cargo.

Commission Findings

The Commission acknowledged the request of the Secretary of Defense to modify the DoD recommendation to allow relocation of tenants to a non-specific destination. The Commission found the normal workload did not justify continued military operation of the installation. Further, the Commission found commercial ports could handle military cargo requirements. The Commission also noted six commercial ports capable of deploying an infantry division exist within one days rail movement of Bayonne. The Commission observed the growth in commercial port workload has resulted in port operators becoming increasingly unwilling to guarantee priority to military cargo within the 48-hour period required by Port Planning Orders (PPO). In some cases they desire 12-14 days to clear staging and berthing facilities for military deployments. The Commission acknowledged the Maritime Administration (MARAD), Port Authorities, and DoD were undertaking initiatives to address the commercial port concerns. Further, the Commission noted legal means exist through the Maritime Administration for compelling commercial operators to give priority to military deployments during contingency situations.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 3. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal. Relocate the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) Eastern Area Command Headquarters and the traffic management portion of the 1301st Major Port Command to a location to be determined. Move the Navy Military Sealift Command, Atlantic, and Navy Resale and Fashion Distribution Center to a location to be determined. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provides administration, maintenance, and logistical support to Reserve Components
One-time Cost: $0.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $1.0 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Camp Kilmer, except an enclave for minimum necessary facilities to support the Reserve Components.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Camp Kilmer consists of approximately 75 acres and 331,000 square feet of facilities. The camp provides administration, supply, training, maintenance, and logistics support to Reserve Component forces. The vast majority of the site is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing Camp Kilmer will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 56 acres.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Secretary’s recommendation to close Camp Kilmer, New Jersey reduces unnecessary infrastructure; however, there is a need to maintain minimum necessary facilities to support current and future requirements of the Reserve Components.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Camp Kilmer, except an enclave for minimum necessary facilities to support the Reserve Components.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provides administration, maintenance, and logistical support to Reserve Components
One-time Cost: $0.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $1.8 million
Annual: $0.4 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Camp Pedricktown, except the Sievers-Sandberg Reserve Center.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Camp Pedricktown consists of approximately 82 acres and 260,000 square feet of facilities. Its primary mission is to provide administration, supply, training, maintenance, and logistics support to Reserve Component forces. The vast majority of Camp Pedricktown’s land and facilities are excess to Army requirements. Closing it will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities for approximately 60 acres.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Secretary’s recommendation to close Camp Pedricktown, New Jersey reduces unnecessary infrastructure; however, there is a need to maintain the Sievers-Sandberg Reserve Center.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Camp Pedricktown, except the Sievers-Sandberg Reserve Center.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provides administration and logistical support to Reserve Components
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Caven Point U. S. Army Reserve Center. Relocate its reserve activities to the Fort Hamilton, NY, provided the recommendation to realign Fort Hamilton is approved.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Caven Point U.S. Army Reserve Center (USARC) is located near Jersey City, NJ, and consists of approximately 45,000 square feet of administrative and maintenance facilities on 35 acres. It is overcrowded and in generally poor condition. The primary mission of Caven Point USARC is to provide administrative, logistics and maintenance support to the Army Reserve. The consolidation of tenants from Caven Point USARC with Reserve Component activities remaining on Fort Hamilton will achieve savings in operations costs.

Community Concerns

The City of Jersey City has expressed concern they have an agreement to lease land that runs through Caven Point for the purpose of extending a highway and want to ensure the BRAC process will not jeopardize that arrangement.

Commission Findings

As stated by the Secretary of Defenses letter dated June 14th, 1995 and upon independent evaluation, the Commission found the closure of Caven Point U.S. Army Reserve Center is no longer viable. While planning to implement the closure and relocation of this facility to Fort Hamilton, New York, the Commission found new construction ($10.5 million) is required to execute the move. The minor savings ($29 thousand annually) did not justify the expense. Furthermore, this new facility requires a larger area than is available for construction at Fort Hamilton.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Caven Point U.S. Army Reserve Center will remain open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Support active Army and Reserve Component training
One-time Cost: $11.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $27.9 million
Annual: $12.2 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Dix by replacing the Active Component garrison with a U.S. Army Reserve garrison. Retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas required for Reserve Component (RC) training as an enclave.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In the past ten years, the Army has significantly reduced its active and reserve forces. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet the needs of the future.

This proposal retains facilities and training areas essential to support Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve units in the Mid-Atlantic states. However, it reduces base operations and real property maintenance costs by eliminating excess facilities. Additionally, this reshaping will truly move Fort Dix into a preferred role of RC support. It retains an Army Reserve garrison to manage Fort Dix and provides a base to support RC logistical requirements. The Army intends to continue the Army National Guard’s current license of buildings.

Various U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve activities regularly train at Fort Dix. The post houses the National Guard High Technology Training Center, a unique facility providing state-of-the-art training devices for guardsmen and reservists in a 12-state area. Fort Dix’s geographic proximity to a large portion of the nation’s RC forces and the air and seaports of embarkation make it one of the most suitable RC Major Training Areas in the United States. This recommendation is consistent with the decision of the 1991 Commission, but better aligns the operation of the installation with its users.

Community Concerns

Members of the Fort Dix community and Burlington County expressed strong support for keeping Fort Dix open in accordance with the realignment recommendation. Earlier concerns that enough personnel would not be retained in the workforce to support Reserve Component training in the region were allayed when the Army agreed that 700-750 employees would be required for this support.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense for the realignment of the Active Army garrison to an Army Reserve Command garrison was both reasonable and well-suited to enhancing this installation as a model for supporting Reserve Component (RC) training in the region. The efficiencies gained, and savings generated, will permit greater support for RC forces as the installation garrison focuses on carrying out its primary mission. The Commission found the community’s concern that enough garrison staff be retained to support the RC training mission was valid, and noted the Armys agreement to provide adequate personnel to do so.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Dix by replacing the Active Component garrison with a U.S. Army Reserve garrison. Retain minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas required for Reserve Component (RC) training as an enclave.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Maintenance and logistical support
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: $2.1 million
Annual: $0.3 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Bellmore Logistics Activity.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Bellmore Logistics Activity, located on Long Island, consists of approximately 17 acres and 180,000 square feet of facilities. It formerly provided maintenance and logistical support to Reserve Component units. Since Reserve Components no longer use Bellmore Logistics Activity, it is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing Bellmore Logistics Activity will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Bellmore Logistics Activity.



Category: Command and Control
Mission: Provide administrative and logistical support for Army and DoD agencies in the New York metropolitan area; serve as headquarters for sub-installation Fort Totten
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Hamilton. Dispose of all family housing. Retain minimum essential land and facilities for existing Army units and activities. Relocate all Army Reserve units from Caven Point, New Jersey, to Fort Hamilton.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Hamilton is low in military value compared to the other command and control/administrative support installations. The post has limited capacity for additional growth or military development. No new or additional missions are planned.

This proposal reduces the size of Fort Hamilton by about one-third to support necessary military missions in the most cost effective manner. The New York Area Command, which includes protocol support to the United Nations, will remain at Fort Hamilton. Another installation will assume the area support currently provided to the New York area.

The Armed Forces Reserve Center at Caven Point was built in 1941. Its sole mission is to support reserve component units. The buildings on the 35-acre parcel are in poor condition. Relocating to Fort Hamilton will allow the Army Reserve to eliminate operating expenses in excess of $100 thousand per year.

Community Concerns

The community argues adoption of the DoD recommendation would close family housing, force military families onto the economy, and yield only minor cost savings to the government. They also maintain the combined military entitlements of Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) are $200-$500 per month less than the cost of area rentals. Further the availability of local rentals is very low. Access to the tight rental market is further compounded by culturally cohesive neighborhoods, where long-term residency is the norm. The community asked the Commission to give the recent military housing privatization initiative a chance to mature through the legislative process and reject the DoD recommendation to close Fort Hamilton’s family housing. The community believes Fort Hamilton is a highly cost efficient installation providing vital services to military elements and retirees in the New York area. The Army has a historic presence in New York City dating back to the Revolution. Adoption of the DoD recommendation would effectively terminate the last active Army facility in the New York City area.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the age and condition of housing is generally comparable to the local market, even though a significant backlog of unfunded maintenance exists. The Commission noted local housing is expensive, and vacancies are limited due to culturally cohesive neighborhoods where long term residency is normal. Rentals comparable to family housing would exceed military quarters entitlements by $200-$500 per month. The Commission found adoption of the DoD recommendation would result in shifting an unwarranted cost burden onto a family housing population composed of relatively junior enlisted military families (currently 37.5 percent E-5 and below).

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Fort Hamilton will remain open. Army Reserve units at Caven Point, New Jersey will remain in place. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Command and Control
Mission: As a sub-post of Fort Hamilton and part of the New York Area Command, provides support to active duty and retired personnel within the local area; serves as host to Headquarters, 77th U.S. Army Reserve Command
One-time Cost: $1.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $1.5 million
Annual: $0.7 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Totten, except an enclave for the U. S. Army Reserve. Dispose of family housing.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Totten, a sub-installation of Fort Hamilton, provides administrative and logistical support to Army Reserve units in the New York City metropolitan area.

Fort Totten is low in military value compared to other command and control/administrative support installations. The post has limited capacity for growth or further military development.

Fort Totten is home to the Ernie Pyle U.S. Army Reserve Center, the largest in the country. Realignment of the Center to nearby Fort Hamilton is not possible since Fort Hamilton has little available space. Therefore, the Army decided to retain this facility as a reserve enclave.

Community Concerns

The community believes Fort Totten constitutes a highly cost-effective operation. Costs associated with programs, facilities, and military services provided to active and reserve armed forces members would increase substantially if they were drawn from the local economy. While quarters are early 1960s standards approaching the end of their useful life span, they are commensurate with units available in the local area. All local rentals are expensive and difficult to find. Most rentals require three months advance rent, a security deposit and a brokers fee for start-up costs. Combined military entitlements for Basic Allowance for Quarters (BAQ) and Variable Housing Allowance (VHA) are $200-$500 per month less than the cost of area rentals. In addition, there are very few local rentals available. Access to the tight rental market is further compounded by culturally cohesive neighborhoods, where long-term residency is the norm. The community also notes that Old Fort Totten, an unofficial historic site and museum, has an historic legacy and artifacts dating back to the Revolutionary War. Any potential development at Fort Totten would pose a threat to historic preservation.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the DoD recommendation to close Fort Totten pertains primarily to family housing. The Ernie Pyle Reserve Center and 77th Army Reserve Command are not at issue in the recommendation.

The Commission acknowledged family housing had a significant backlog of deferred maintenance requirements. At least 24 units were inactive due to unsatisfied rehabilitation needs, and occupied units contained limited amenities. The Commission also noted the area around Fort Totten was an upscale community where rentals are expensive, and vacancies are limited. By Commission cost estimates, moving Fort Totten’s military families on the economy would result in a total out-of-pocket expense of $0.5 million to family housing members. Alternatively, the draft Army plan to rehabilitate quarters at the Navy’s Mitchell Field, Long Island housing area is financially unattractive. The Commission found, however, a sufficient number of vacant quarters exist at Fort Hamilton to satisfy Fort Totten’s military family housing requirements. The Commission found acceptance of the DoD recommendation would result in a reduction of excess infrastructure.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Totten, except an enclave for the U.S. Army Reserve. Dispose of family housing.



Category: Ammunition Storage Installations
Mission: Receive, store, issue, maintain and demilitarize conventional munitions; receive, store, and issue general supplies, including hazardous materials and prepositioned reserve stocks
One-time Cost: $29.9 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $12.9 million
Annual: $19.3 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Seneca Army Depot, except an enclave to store hazardous material and ores.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation is supported by the Army’s long range operational assessment. The Army has adopted a tiered ammunition depot concept to reduce infrastructure, eliminate static non-required ammunition stocks, decrease manpower requirements, increase efficiencies and permit the Army to manage a smaller stockpile. The tiered depot concept reduces the number of active storage sites and makes efficiencies possible:

(1) Tier 1 – Active Core Depots. These installations will support a normal/full-up activity level with a stockage configuration of primarily required stocks and minimal non-required stocks requiring demilitarization. Normal activity includes daily receipts/issues of training stocks, storage of war reserve stocks required in contingency operations and additional war reserve stocks to augment lower level tier installation power projection capabilities. Installations at this activity level will receive requisite levels of storage support, surveillance, inventory, maintenance and demilitarization.

(2) Tier 2 – Cadre Depots. These installations normally will perform static storage of follow-on war reserve requirements. Daily activity will be minimal for receipts/issues. Workload will focus on maintenance, surveillance, inventory and demilitarization operations. These installations will have minimal staffs unless a contingency arises.

(3) Tier 3 – Caretaker Depots. Installations designated as Tier 3 will have minimal staffs and store stocks no longer required until demilitarized or relocated. The Army plans to eliminate stocks at these sites no later than year 2001. Seneca Army Depot is a Tier 3 depot.

Community Concerns

The Seneca community contends Seneca should be a Tier 1 instead of a Tier 3 installation due to its power projection capabilities. They note Seneca received no credit for its on-post airfield and missile maintenance facilities, and received insufficient value for its conforming small-arms warehouses. They contend the tiering plan further used irrelevant measures for location, storage, and power projection, and inclusion of the ammunition tiering plan in the stationing strategy negates the military value analysis. The community also argues all other Army ammunition storage is full, so there would be nowhere for Seneca’s ammunition to go. They believe the Department would save more money by closing Letterkenny and transferring the missile maintenance mission to existing facilities at Seneca.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the ammunition tiering plan used as an input to the Armys operational blueprint was not intended for BRAC purposes, and contained both internal inconsistencies and flaws arising from its use in the BRAC context. Its inclusion caused Seneca to lose one position (3rd to 4th) in military value ranking. Because of the inclusion of the tiering plan, bases in different tiers could not be fairly evaluated against each other.

The Commission found no significant excess capacity existed in the Army ammunition storage system. The Commission also found, however, with the retention of demilitarization capability at Sierra Army Depot, the system contained enough demilitarization capacity to create excess storage space equal to two installations over the next six years if demilitarization of existing ammunition stored outdoors was deferred.

The Commission also found Seneca was particularly hurt by the choice of square feet as a storage metric, and Seneca was not given proper credit for its airfield and conforming small-arms warehouses. Given the ability to reduce ammunition storage by two installation equivalents, however, the Commission found Seneca could be closed.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Seneca Army Depot, except an enclave to store hazardous material and ores.

Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Currently leased to City of Fayetteville, North Carolina
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Recreation Center #2, Fayetteville, NC.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Recreation Center #2 consists of approximately four acres and 17,000 square feet of community facilities. Recreation Center #2 is currently being leased to the city of Fayetteville, NC, and is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing Recreation Center #2 will provide reuse opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Recreation Center #2, Fayetteville, North Carolina.



Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Support active Army and Reserve Component training
One-time Cost: $8.5 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $74.8 million
Annual: $18.4 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Indiantown Gap, except minimum essential facilities as a Reserve Component enclave.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In the past ten years, the Army significantly reduced its active and reserve forces. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet future requirements.

Fort Indiantown Gap is low in military value compared to other major training area installations. Although managed by an Active Component garrison, it has virtually no Active Component tenants. Annual training for Reserve Component units which now use Fort Indiantown Gap can be conducted at other installations in the region, including Fort Dix, Fort A.P. Hill and Fort Drum.

Fort Indiantown Gap is owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and leased by the U.S. Army through 2049 for $1. The government can terminate the lease with one year’s written notice. Facilities erected during the duration of the lease are the property of the U.S. and may be disposed of, provided the premises are restored to their natural condition.

Community Concerns

Members of the surrounding communities in the Lebanon Valley, as well as officials of the Pennsylvania National Guard, believe the training and readiness of Reserve Component units within the state will suffer as a result of the recommendation. The recommendation made by the Secretary of Defense would require travel out of state for annual training. The community would like to continue the current level of daily operations and training on the installation with the support and funding provided by having an active Army garrison. The Pennsylvania National Guard pointed to several inaccuracies in the original data calls to The Army Basing Study, which resulted in the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) being recomputed and showing lower savings from closing the installation than first estimated. With the various tenant activities and daily work and training sites dispersed throughout the base, advocates of keeping the post open pointed out that any enclave would contain virtually the entire installation.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Armys recommendation to close Fort Indiantown Gap to be reasonable in view of the cost of maintaining the large amount of aging infrastructure. The Commission carefully examined other installations in the region and found adequate locations exist with sufficient capacity for Reserve Component annual training, without Fort Indiantown Gap, but scheduling of such training would be more difficult, especially during peak training load periods. The Commission also found National Guard and other RC units required continued access to Fort Indiantown Gap for both individual and annual training.

Claims by elected officials, the Pennsylvania National Guard, and community members that the Armys COBRA analysis was flawed were carefully reviewed by Commission Staff, the Army Audit Agency, and the General Accounting Office. Each review supported the Armys COBRA.

The Commission found the Armys analysis objective and an accurate projection of future, substantial savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria 1 and 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Indiantown Gap, except minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas as a Reserve Component training enclave to permit the conduct of individual and annual training. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Command, Control and Administration
Mission: Administrative and logistics support
One-time Cost: $0.3 million
Savings: 1996-01: $2.1 million
Annual: $0.7 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign the Kelly Support Center by consolidating Army Reserve units onto three of its five parcels. Dispose of the remaining two parcels. Relocate the Army Reserves leased maintenance activity in Valley Grove, WV, to the Kelly Support Center.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Kelly Support Center, a sub-installation of Fort Drum, NY, provides administrative and logistical support to Army Reserve units in western Pennsylvania. It comprises five separate parcels of property.

The Kelly Support Center is last in military value compared to other command and control/administrative support installations. Reserve usage is limited to monthly weekend drills. It possesses no permanent facilities or mobilization capability.

This proposal eliminates two parcels of property, approximately 232 acres and 500,000 square feet of semi-permanent structures, from the Armys inventory. Since there are no other feasible alternatives, the Army is retaining three small parcels for Army Reserve functions and Readiness Group Pittsburgh.

Relocating the Army’s Reserve activity from Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity, WV, to the Kelly Support Center consolidates it with its parent unit and saves $28,000 per year in lease costs.

Community Concerns

Based on current staffing and reimbursable positions, the community contends the personnel savings are overstated. The community also argued the personnel savings appear questionable since the implementation plan indicates 70 percent of the current workforce would be retained to support the recently designated Reserve Support Command. Finally, the community believes no lease savings will be realized, because a new maintenance facility is being constructed in West Virginia for the Valley Grove unit.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the revised Army cost analysis keeps the area support mission at the Kelly Support Center with a majority of the existing workforce. In addition, the Secretary of Defense informed the Commission on June 14, 1995, it was no longer viable to relocate the Valley Grove maintenance activity to the Kelly Support Center because a new facility is being built for the unit in West Virginia.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign the Kelly Support Center by consolidating Army Reserve units onto three of its five parcels. Dispose of the remaining two parcels. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Depots
Mission: Depot maintenance
One-time Cost: $49.6 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $226.5 million
Annual: $76.0 million
Return on Investment: 1998 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission to Anniston Army Depot. Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage. Change the 1993 Commission’s decision regarding the consolidating of tactical missile maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Letterkenny Army Depot is one of the Army’s five maintenance depots and one of three ground vehicle maintenance depots. Over time, each of the ground maintenance depots has become increasingly specialized. Anniston performs heavy combat vehicle maintenance and repair. Red River performs similar work on infantry fighting vehicles. Letterkenny Army Depot is responsible for towed and self-propelled artillery as well as DoD tactical missile repair. Like a number of other Army depots, Letterkenny receives, stores, and ships all types of ammunition items. A review of long range operational requirements supports a reduction of Army depots, specifically the consolidation of ground combat workload at a single depot.

The ground maintenance capacity of the three depots currently exceeds programmed work requirements by the equivalent of one to two depots. The heavy combat vehicle mission from Anniston cannot be absorbed at Letterkenny without major construction and facility renovations. Available maintenance capacity at Anniston and Tobyhanna makes the realigning Letterkenny to the two depots the most logical in terms of military value and cost effectiveness. Closure of Letterkenny is supported by the Joint Cross-Service Group for Depot Maintenance.

The Army’s recommendation to transfer missile workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot preserves Letterkenny’s missile disassembly and storage mission. It capitalizes on Tobyhanna’s electronics focus and retains DoD missile system repair at a single Army depot.

Community Concerns

The community was critical of DoDs proposal to change the 1993 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions recommendation which consolidated DoDs tactical missile maintenance work at Letterkenny Army Depot. The community believes Letterkenny was recommended for realignment as a result of what they believed to be the Armys flawed military value analysis. The community argued the military value analysis inappropriately gave more weight to (1) depot capacity, which is based on the number of workstations, (2) the average age of depot buildings, and (3) hourly base operating costs. The community believes the military value should have placed more weight on a comparative analysis of relative depot size, including expandable acres and building square footage. If the Army had done so, the community believes Letterkenny would not have been targeted for closure or realignment. The community further stated the Armys military value analysis did not consider current and future missions, including ongoing efforts to consolidate interserviced tactical missile maintenance, and benefits gained from current and future public and private depot teaming arrangements. They suggested the public and private partnership arrangements should be continued to make more efficient use of available infrastructure. The community also voiced concerns about the Armys failure to consider above core workload in its initial COBRA estimates. Finally, the community argued the one-time cost to realign Letterkenny’s workload to the Anniston and Tobyhanna Army Depots was significantly understated and the return on investment would exceed 90 years, compared to the DoD estimate which calculated an immediate return on investment.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army treated all of its depots equally. The Armys military value rating process was driven by the Armys desire to eliminate excess capacity within its depot infrastructure. Higher overhead expenses, coupled with a lower direct labor hour base, resulted in Letterkenny’s lower military value rating. The Commission found Letterkenny’s forecast future workload was not sufficient to maintain a cost efficient depot.

The Commission carefully examined the Armys one-time cost for realigning the Letterkenny Army Depot and found some uncertainties. The Commission found the Army failed to include in its COBRA analysis, construction costs of approximately $5.7 million and personnel training costs of approximately $10 million. These oversights would raise the one-time costs to approximately $65 million, but do not change the projected annual savings. The estimated one-time costs support the transfer of 450 personnel to Tobyhanna Army Depot and 392 tenant personnel to Base X. In making its final decisions, the Commission considered these instances where costs could ultimately be other than what DoD has projected. The Commission adopted the DoD recommendation, and the DoD cost projections while recognizing the uncertainties associated with these costs.

The 1993 Commission assigned Letterkenny responsibility for the interservice repair and overhaul of DoDs tactical missiles and related support equipment. The Letterkenny personnel have made excellent progress in their efforts to implement the 1993 Commissions recommendation. The 1995 Commission notes that the Report of the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces suggested the eventual privatization of depot maintenance activities. The consolidated tactical missile repair program is a likely candidate for future privatization. In response to community concerns about the Armys failure to consider above core tactical missile maintenance workload in its original COBRA analysis, the Army Materiel Command changed its assumptions to reflect retention of an additional 310 personnel to work in the enclaved tactical missile area of Letterkenny. The Commission suggests the Department of Defense explore options for transferring workload to the private sector, as appropriate.

The Commission found using Letterkenny facilities for Paladin weapon system upgrades was highly efficient and cost effective. The Commission further recognizes OSD policy generally dictates that future weapon system upgrades should be accomplished within the private sector. For this reason, the Commission finds the Department of Defense should make every effort to dispose of Letterkenny’s combat vehicle shops as an intact, complete and usable facility that could be used by the private sector for future weapon system upgrades. This would afford the community a better opportunity of recovering from the economic effects that may occur following the realignment of the Letterkenny installation.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission to Anniston Army Depot, Alabama. Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage. Change the 1993 Commissions decision regarding the consolidation of tactical missile maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania or private sector commercial activities. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Command and Control
Mission: Coordinate and support mobilization of Reserve Component forces, and provide base operations and other support to government activities in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
One-time Cost: $7.0 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $23.3 million
Annual: $8.9 million
Return on Investment: 1999 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Buchanan by reducing garrison management functions and disposing of family housing. Retain an enclave for the reserve components, Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and the Antilles Consolidated School.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Fort Buchanan, a sub-installation of Fort McPherson, provides administrative, logistical and mobilization support to Army units and activities in Puerto Rico and the Caribbean region. Tenants include a U.S. Army Reserve headquarters, AAFES and a DoD-operated school complex. Although the post is managed by an active component garrison, it supports relatively few active component tenants. The family housing will close. The activities providing area support will relocate to Roosevelt Roads Navy Base and other sites. The Army intends to license buildings to the Army National Guard, that they currently occupy.

Community Concerns

The community believes Fort Buchanan’s strategic and historic value were incorrectly assessed during the assessment/selection process. It is the last active Army presence in the Caribbean and soon to be the last in Latin America, a legacy dating back to 1898. The community maintains the manpower impact of the DoD recommendation is underestimated and that actual job losses will exceed 500 personnel. The community believes Army cost estimates understate closure costs and operating costs. Thus, savings from adoption of the DoD recommendation are inaccurate. The community contends Roosevelt Roads, while only 42 road miles from Fort Buchanan, is an unacceptable alternative for family housing. Travel between the two installations routinely takes up to two hours. Further, Roosevelt Roads already has a 400 unit family housing deficit and the San Juan housing rental market is very tight and expensive. Lastly, the community notes Fort Buchanan’s closure would be a severe blow to the 15,000 plus retired community, and would be devastating to the already depressed Puerto Rican economy.

Commission Findings

The Commission reviewed information concerning the current state and cost of Fort Buchanan’s family housing, deferred maintenance, and the status of the installations utility infrastructure. The Commission noted while family housing was generally well maintained, units are old, amenities limited, and the supporting installation utility infrastructure is old. The Commission found closure of family housing results in savings to DoD, significant cost avoidance, and the reduction of excess infrastructure.

The Commission discussed the range of installation missions. Mobilization support is important, and its support is best fulfilled by a resident active component garrison. The Commission found the concept to disestablish the installation garrison exceeded the scope of the DoD recommendation to realign Fort Buchanan. The Commission reviewed cost estimates to maintain a garrison capable of supporting mobilization and the enclaved tenant units. Although savings are reduced from the DoD estimates, the Commission recommendation reduces infrastructure and retains an active presence in Puerto Rico while still providing savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1, 2, 4, and 5. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Buchanan. Dispose of family housing. Retain garrison facilities as necessary to fulfill mobilization missions and requirements, and enclave support functions. Retain an enclave for the Reserve Components, Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) and the Antilles Consolidated School. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Depots
Mission: Depot maintenance
One-time Cost: $7.2 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $83.9 million
Annual: $20.0 million
Return On Investment: 1997 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Red River Army Depot. Transfer the ammunition storage mission, intern training center, and civilian training education to Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant. Transfer the light combat vehicle maintenance mission to Anniston Army Depot. Transfer the Rubber Production Facility to Lone Star.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Red River Army Depot is one of the Army’s five maintenance depots and one of three ground vehicle maintenance depots. Over time, each of the ground maintenance depots has become increasingly specialized. Anniston performs heavy combat vehicle maintenance and repair. Red River performs similar work on infantry fighting vehicles. Letterkenny Army Depot is responsible for towed and self-propelled artillery as well as DoD tactical missile repair. Like a number of other Army depots, Red River receives, stores, and ships all types of ammunition items. A review of long range operational requirements supports a reduction of Army depots, specifically the consolidation of ground combat workload at a single depot.

The ground maintenance capacity of the three depots currently exceeds programmed work requirements by the equivalent of one to two depots. Without considerable and costly modifications, Red River cannot assume the heavy combat vehicle mission from Anniston. Red River cannot assume the DoD Tactical Missile Consolidation program from Letterkenny without major construction. Available maintenance capacity at Anniston and Tobyhanna makes the realignment of Red River into Anniston the most logical in terms of military value and cost effectiveness. Closure of Red River is consistent with the recommendations of the Joint Cross-Service Group for Depot Maintenance.

Community Concerns

The community argues closure of Red River Army Depot will destroy the special efficiencies that result from collocation of the Red River Army Depot with the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Depot, Red River. They claim DoD substantially deviated from the final selection criteria by not conducting a combined value assessment of the two. They also believe closing Red River Army Depot will overload Anniston Army Depot, limit surge capability, and jeopardize readiness. Retention of only one maintenance depot for ground combat vehicles will severely limit the Armys ability to respond to national emergencies. The community also believes that the Army understated the costs associated with the recommendation. Additionally, the community claims the Army analysis is flawed by omitting significant mission requirements, such as the Missile Recertification Office, and by including non-BRAC personnel savings. The community also believes the Army understated unemployment costs in their economic analysis. The community proposes retention of Red River Army Depot and Anniston Army Depot, realignment of Letterkenny Army Depot to Anniston and Red River and downsizing of both to core. To fill vacant infrastructure, the community recommends teaming with industry.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army has treated all its depots equally. The Armys recommendations were an aggressive approach to minimize depot infrastructure, maintaining the minimal capacity to support Army peacetime and wartime requirements. In addition, the Army recommendations supported its stationing strategy and the operational blueprint. The Armys operational blueprint, however, assumed too great a risk in readiness in the attempt to reduce infrastructure costs. While Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, has the capacity to accept the ground combat vehicle depot maintenance workload from Red River, the Commission found placing all this workload into a single facility places too much risk on readiness. Retention of both Anniston Army and Red River Army Depots keeps the Armys top-rated ground combat depots and preserves future readiness.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 1. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Red River Army Depot by moving all maintenance missions, except for that related to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle Series, to other depot maintenance activities, including the private sector. Retain conventional ammunition storage, intern training center, Rubber Production Facility, and civilian training education at Red River. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Proving Ground
Mission: Test and Evaluation
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Dugway Proving Ground by relocating the smoke and obscurant mission to Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, and some elements of chemical/biological research to Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Dispose of English Village and retain test and experimentation facilities necessary to support Army and DoD missions.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Dugway is low in military value compared to other proving grounds. Its test facilities conduct both open air and laboratory chemical/biological testing in support of various Army and DoD missions. The testing is important as are associated security and safety requirements. However, this recommendation enables the Army to continue these important missions and also reduce costly overhead at Dugway.

Yuma can assume Dugway’s programmed smoke and obscurant testing. Aberdeen Proving Ground can accept the laboratory research and development portion of the chemical/biological mission from Dugway, since it is currently performing chemical and biological research in facilities that carry equivalent bio/safety levels. Open air and simulant testing missions will remain at Dugway.

The State of Utah has expressed an interest in using English Village and associated firing and training ranges at Dugway for the National Guard, including the establishment of an artillery training facility.

Community Concerns

The major community concern at Dugway is the Armys planned closure of English Village and the resultant impact on the military value of Dugway Proving Ground. Two thousand residents and employees of Dugway live at English Village. There is no nearby housing available and, according to the community, the loss of productivity in making long commutes, often during inclement weather, would be staggering. The 592 housing units that comprise English Village cost the Army $1.5 million annually. The community believes that English Village should be kept open to support Dugway’s vital missions and quality of life.

Commission Findings

The Commission found closure of English Village would significantly impact Dugway’s testing mission and the residents quality of life. The Commission found permitting problems at Yuma and Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the planned receiver sites for part of Dugway’s mission, made the move virtually impossible. On June 14, 1995, the Secretary of Defense asked that the recommendation on Dugway Proving Ground be set aside. The Secretary said testing must remain at Dugway, and because of facility restrictions and permitting requirements, the base operating support, including English Village, should remain open.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criteria 1 and 8. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Dugway Proving Ground, including English Village, will remain open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Training Schools
Mission: Provide facilities and services to the U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command, the Quartermaster Center and School, the Army Logistics Management College, and other tenants
One-time Cost: $2.1 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $15.5 million
Annual: $3.7 million
Return on Investment: 1997 (1 year)
FINAL ACTION: Realign

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Realign Fort Lee, by reducing Kenner Army Community Hospital to a clinic. Eliminate inpatient services.

Secretary of Defense Justification

This recommendation, suggested by the Joint Cross-Service Group on Medical Treatment, eliminates excess medical treatment capacity at Fort Lee, VA by eliminating inpatient services at Kenner Army Community Hospital. Inpatient care would be provided by other nearby military medical activities and private facilities through Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS).

Community Concerns

The community contends the Army recommendation would decrease staff at the facility below the level needed to support adequately an outpatient clinic. They argue these staff reductions and elimination of inpatient care services would mean the loss of critical medical support to Fort Lees mission, as well as diminished access and increased costs for beneficiaries in and beyond the hospital catchment area. In addition, they say these reductions would result in half of the hospitals current demand for outpatient workload falling to outside providers, thus greatly increasing the Armys predicted cost of the recommendation. The community also argues DoD would lose the ability to manage CHAMPUS costs in the Fort Lee area, further increasing the cost of the program beyond the Armys estimate. Finally, the community points out the Joint Cross-Service Groups functional value score for Kenner Army Community Hospital was higher than many other hospitals not recommended for realignment.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the realignment of Kenner Army Community Hospital, to an adequately staffed and resourced outpatient clinic, will eliminate excess acute care inpatient beds and reduce costs, without compromising the mission effectiveness of Fort Lee. The Commission recognized the validity of the community’s concern that a poorly staffed clinic could potentially impair Fort Lees important training and other missions. While the Commission found the adequacy of clinic resources is an Army responsibility and will be resolved during the implementation of this recommendation, it urges the Army to pay close attention to ensure continued, adequate, outpatient care to beneficiaries.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: realign Fort Lee, by reducing Kenner Army Community Hospital to a clinic. Eliminate inpatient services.



Category: Major Training Areas
Mission: Regional training center that supports active Army and Reserve Components and other DoD activities
One-time Cost: $25.3 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $46.7 million
Annual: $21.8 million
Return on Investment: 2001 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Fort Pickett, except minimum essential training areas and facilities as an enclave for the Reserve Components. Relocate the Petroleum Training Facility to Fort Dix, NJ.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In the past ten years, the Army has reduced its active and reserve forces considerably. The Army must reduce excess infrastructure to meet the needs of the future.

Fort Pickett is very low in military value compared to other major training area installations. It has virtually no Active Component tenants. Annual training for reserve units that now use Fort Pickett can be conducted easily at other installations in the region, including Fort Bragg, Fort A.P. Hill and Camp Dawson. The Army intends to license required facilities and training areas to the Army National Guard.

Community Concerns

Members of the rural community strongly support keeping Fort Pickett open, stressing what they believe is its high military value and the employment opportunities it provides. Residents of the town of Blackstone and employees on the installation have both stressed the long-term, outstanding military-community relations that exist, and cited the lack of environmental impediments to training that exist at other military bases. Community groups believe the Armys analysis was flawed, and failed to take into account the training conducted at Fort Pickett by the other services active and reserve components, as well as increased active duty Marine and Army training occurring there due to training congestion at installations such as Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army evaluated all its major training area installations equally. The Commission also found the Armys process of integrating a quantitative installation assessment with a qualitative operational blueprint, based upon operational and stationing requirements of the Army Stationing Strategy, is a sound approach to develop a military value assessment (MVA) for each installation in this category.

The Commission examined all of the issues presented by the local community and elected officials, especially with regard to the military value of Fort Pickett as a major training area. The Commission found members of all components from all the armed forces train at Fort Pickett. In evaluating the future access to the training facilities and training area of the installation, especially by members of the Reserve Component (RC), the Commission was satisfied that such access can continue. The Commission found adequate training locations existed in the region to handle additional RC annual training requirements, without Fort Pickett, but scheduling of such training would be more difficult, especially during peak training load periods. The Commission also found the National Guard and other RC units required continued access to Fort Pickett for both individual and annual training.

Finally, the Commission found closing Fort Pickett, and preserving an enclave for training for the Reserve Components, would reduce excess infrastructure and generate substantial savings.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria 1 and 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Fort Pickett, except minimum essential ranges, facilities, and training areas as a Reserve Component training enclave to permit the conduct of individual and annual training. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.



Category: Leases
Mission: Software support
One-time Cost: $ 9.0 million
Savings: 1996-01: $-4.9 million (Cost)
Annual: $1.2 million
Return on Investment: 2007 (9 years)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close by relocating Information Systems Software Center to Fort Meade, MD.

Secretary of Defense Justification

In 1993, the Commission suggested DoD direct the Services to include a separate category for leased facilities to ensure a bottom-up review of leased space. The Army has conducted a review of activities in leased space to identify opportunities for relocation onto military installations. Because of the cost of leasing, the Army’s goal is to minimize leased space, when feasible, and maximize the use of government-owned facilities.

This activity can relocate easily for a minor cost. The annual cost of the current lease is $2 million.

Community Concerns

Even though the lease on the facility occupied by the Information Systems Software Center expires in 2000, the community contends there would be no savings to the government, as a result of the recommendation because the General Services Administration must continue to pay the rent. The community argued there is no existing space to renovate at Fort Meade, so the Army must construct a new building. They noted the return on investment for new construction is 18 years versus 9 years under the renovation option.

Commission Findings

The Commission found the Army plans to backfill the leased space occupied by the Information Systems Software Center (ISSC) with activities currently in less desirable leased space. The Commission found the lease savings should be comparable because the lease costs for the activities under consideration are approximately the same as ISSC’s lease cost. The Commission found the recommendation is consistent with the Armys Stationing Strategy to reduce leased space and move into government-owned space where economically feasible.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close by relocating Information Systems Software Center to Fort Meade, Maryland.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Provide training facilities for active Army and Reserve Component units
One-time Cost: $0.04 million
Savings: 1996-2001: $0.8 million
Annual: $0.2 million
Return on Investment: 1996 (Immediate)
FINAL ACTION: Close

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Camp Bonneville.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Camp Bonneville consists of approximately 4,000 acres and 178,000 square feet of facilities. The primary mission of Camp Bonneville is to provide training facilities for Active and Reserve units. Training currently conducted at Camp Bonneville will be shifted to Fort Lewis, Washington. Accordingly, Camp Bonneville is excess to the Army’s requirements. Closing the camp will save base operations and maintenance funds and provide reuse opportunities.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

The Commission found no reason to disagree with the recommendation of the Secretary of Defense.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense did not deviate substantially from the force-structure plan and final criteria. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: close Camp Bonneville.



Category: Minor Installation
Mission: Maintenance support to Army Reserve activities
One-time Cost: None
Savings: 1996-2001: None
Annual: None
Return on Investment: None
FINAL ACTION: Remain open

Secretary of Defense Recommendation

Close Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA). Relocate reserve activity to the Kelly Support Center, PA, provided the recommendation to realign Kelly Support Center is approved.

Secretary of Defense Justification

Valley Grove AMSA, located in Valley Grove, WV, consists of approximately 10,000 square feet of leased maintenance facilities. Its primary mission is to provide maintenance support to Army Reserve activities. Consolidating tenants from Valley Grove AMSA with the Reserve Component activities remaining on Kelly Support Center will reduce the cost of operation.

Community Concerns

There were no formal expressions from the community.

Commission Findings

As stated by the Secretary of Defenses letter dated June 14th, 1995 and upon further evaluation, the Commission found the closure and relocation of Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity to Kelly Support Center, Pennsylvania is no longer viable. The Commission found Congress added a construction project ($6.8 million) to build a new maintenance shop at Wheeling-Ohio County Airport. The project is now underway, obviating the need to move to a new facility at Kelly Support Center.

Commission Recommendation

The Commission finds the Secretary of Defense deviated substantially from final criterion 2. Therefore, the Commission recommends the following: Valley Grove Area Maintenance Support Activity (AMSA) will remain open. The Commission finds this recommendation is consistent with the force-structure plan and final criteria.